Officials confirm April 2019 for RTA claim reforms

Ministry of Justice officials have confirmed to personal injury lawyers that key reforms affecting the sector will be implemented next year.

The Motor Accidents Solicitors’ Society reported today that ministers have agreed for reforms to be implemented from April 2019. The initial focus will be on implementing the changes in relation to RTA claims, with further personal injury reforms coming later.

Officials believe they can progress the Civil Liability Bill through parliament in the next 14 months, and with it a tariff system for soft tissue injury damages. The plan remains to bring in this bill at the same time as the new £5,000 small claims limit for RTA claims, which requires secondary legislation.

The news was confirmed at a meeting of MoJ officials and the strategic alliance of MASS, the Law Society and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.

Simon Stanfield, chair of MASS, said his organisation will continue to fight the proposed changes at every opportunity. ‘If parliament approves the plans and they do proceed, there are still huge questions about how it would be implemented, operated and how the worst consequences can be limited. There is an enormous amount for the government to sort out if it is to hit its April 2019 target date.’

Brett Dixon, APIL president, said ministers have at least taken on board arguments about the importance of introducing changes in stages and not immediately including employers’ liability and public liability claims.

He added: ‘That the reforms will go ahead at all is, of course, unwelcome news to injured people, but APIL will use its seat at the table to help to safeguard access to justice for injured people as far as possible. There is still a lot of work to do in the next 14 months.’

The revised small claims limit would effectively rule out solicitors from recovering their costs for any cases worth less than £5,000, which is believed to account for around 96% of RTA claims.

The reforms have been on the table since George Osborne’s autumn statement in November 2015 and were included in the Prisons and Courts Bill last year, which succumbed to the parliamentary time restrictions caused by the snap general election.

Insurers say motorists will save around £35 on their motor premiums and have pledged to pass on the benefits of the reforms. Commentators have predicted that thousands of jobs could be at risk if the changes are implemented in full.

Reforms are being scrutinised by an ongoing inquiry from the House of Commons justice committee which is due to report in the coming weeks.

Law Society president Joe Egan noted the timeline for introducing the whiplash reforms had been made public before the justice select committee has had a chance to issue its report.

Egan said: 'In our submission to the select committee we outlined the extensive steps that can be required in low-value personal injury claims. We also highlighted new research findings that show 76% of medical experts would not accept instructions from claimants without a lawyer.

'These changes will mean people injured through no fault of their own will struggle to get justice. The Law Society does not accept that these limits are reasonable and we continue to oppose these refor

77 Readers' comments

Have your say

Only registered users can comment on this article.

If this attack on ordinary people' s access to justice gies through ...has anyone assessed the effects it will not just on pi firms, but firms whose business includes a significant amount of pi?..I can't help thinking that the profession as a whole needs to fight this ! Vote Labour?!.....I might add that the gazette seems to almost ignore this issue in favour of endless features on diversity, brexit and other far more niche issues

'Third party capture' always amused me as an emotive phrase and it seems to be particularly popular in a few claimant factories in Liverpool.

However, the logic must now really horrify these dancing tv advert merchants - that if they had a real choice, most claimants wouldn't bother and the intelligent ones with a £5k claim might pursue it themselves without the need for 18 - 25 year-old claims handlers in business parks.

So according to APIL's weekly newsletter the ABI have been given the green light to fund a new IT gateway to allow LIPs to access the system in the brave new world.
Unbelievable-will they be sponsoring the Courts/the Judges next ?
Surely this is third party capture approved by the Government ?

Actually Schrader said that he believed in short term whiplash injuries but he did not believe in chronic whiplash injuries. The study in no way contradicts the statement that whiplash injuries are suffered in other countries but not pursued because there is no remedy.

Your assertion that persistent whiplash pain is experienced in other countries but not pursued because of the lack of a remedy is contradicted by Harald Schrader's study in Lithuania in 1996. But actually the rest of Western Europe recognises whiplash, but claims are at a far lower level than in the UK.

I'm from an insurer who has been dealing with PI claims for 8 years, 3 of those years were dealing directly with claimants directly for their injuries.
Your last paragraph clearly has no relevance to the reforms though.

Apologies, I thought my post had laid it out. No drama, just a comment regarding the erosion of civil liberties of the everyday 'common' man of the UK.

The last I looked, we are all owed a duty of care when using the road by other road users. Just the same as we are when we enter a building lawfully, or a place of work say, where you will perhaps undertake your more superior undertakings.

The eroded liberty referred to, is the fact that a victim of negligence on the road, suffering a soft tissue injury is not afforded the same legal rights and assistance moving forward, as the victim of negligence suffering the same soft tissue injury if sustained say at work, or when a lawful visitor to another persons premises. That's a two tiered system, that affects the equality of treatment individuals receive, at a time when we are all supposed to be equal, and curiously enough, is thus unjust. This is why legislation is required to bring about this inequality.

It leaves the innocent victim of a road accident on their own, at a time when they are suffering enough, with the worries an accident brings, both as to their health, their finances, their family, their job and/or business, and their vehicle for example.

Most if not all, will have no knowledge of the legal system, and will hardly be helped to obtain what they are legally entitled to by the employees of the Defendant insurance company, who will be incentivised to deal with each Claimant in the swiftest, and cheapest of manners no doubt, as the shareholders must be kept happy.

I take it by your last two lines that you therefore neatly fit into either category (a) or (b) as outlined in my original post.

Some people enjoy assisting people put their lives back together following the negligent actions of another, for example, preventing the repossession of their home when their employer cannot afford their salary during their absence. Just another of the things those of us who "don't have the experience to think of anything other than simple no win no fee compensation claims" do as part of our work for fixed reward at rates utterly unbefitting the qualifications required to undertake such work.

As to the disparity between our jurisdiction and others re claims for whiplash, there is no difference int he injuries suffered just that in some jurisdictions there is no remedy available and therefore people do not pursue it.

Your analogy is as cogent as suggesting that a lack of gastric band surgery in the Yemen is an indicator that the applicants for GB surgery in the UK are not morbidly obese.

As Chair of A2J I see that the MoJ has made this announcement prior to the publication of the Justice Select Committee Inquiry headed by Bob Neill MP. Interesting.
Secondly, A2J showed recently using HMG’s own figures that any insurance saving by these reforms would save only about £18 per policy - just over 0.30p per week. See the A2J website www.ajag.co.uk

So legal rights are being removed for just over 30p per week. Also, the tariff proposed is grossly inconsistent with the JCG guidelines on quantum.

There is and will be significant opposition in both Houses of Parliament, including many Conservative MP’s and HMG risks defeat, which it needs to avoid at all costs.

Anybody who believes that the Small Claims Limit should be consistent across all types of claims must see their MP’s and lobby for adoption of the only viable alternative proposed by any campaign group which is A2J’s Alternative Claims Framework. See this on the web site above. It is rational and makes good sense.
A2J I’m just over 2 years has 18,800 followers on Twitter - the same as the ABI.
People must believe that our alternative proposal is hugely viable.

Although the arguments for maintaining the status quo on whiplash are always framed - in this forum - on the selfless basis of preserving the rights of the injured party, that is essentially a straw man.

Nobody is arguing against it.

But there wasn't much whiplash injury about at Runnymede in 1215.

And as is alluded to below, the absurd epidemic of whiplash claims in the UK - regardless of any recent or temporary fall off - is little short of surreal.

Arguing that attempts to reduce it will cost jobs in the PI industry looks like special pleading, quite apart from being a paradigm example of Bastiat's broken window theory.

Oh the drama, what exactly is being eroded here bar the pointless inclusion of a "law firm" when dealing with nothing more than a sprain/ strain?
At the end of the day you are shedding tears for a small number of law firms who do not have the experience to think of anything other than simple no win no fee compensation claims

Great post anon@16.30...the IFT report and Brady report et al if implemented would have sorted this combined with a time limit for submission of claims(re costs sanctions to avoid data mined claims)ban of pre meds/increase the limit in line with inflation..the ACF ?
Cannot fathom from what level of premium the supposed saving will come..anyone who goes on the aggregators websites will see a massive spread of premiums for the same cover.
Still shocked by Keen's comments there is a place for well run CMC's-go figure.

Welcome back to Dickensian times, and the lawless state that beckons. Notwithstanding the Brexit situation amongst others, the need to remove the liberty of the common man must come first and the insurers contributions need to be repaid, with interest by the government. The question as to who is actually governing though is perhaps the one to be asking. The complete lack of morals of the insurers incessant refusal to actually meet the insured risks people pay them a sizeable premium for (should the worst occur) means that negligent harm to an innocent party is now going to be treated differently to the same harm caused to them by an alternative negligent means! The country is going backwards rapidly, and many seem happy about it, for the sake of a mythical £50 saving you won't actually see, just like the other savings promised historically that weren't actually passed on and premiums continued to rise relentlessly. The usual 'moral high ground' naysayers will be out in force I am sure, saying how wonderful it is that liberty is being eroded before their eyes, because 2% of claims are fraudulent (Aviva's figures not mine) and how either (a) they would never claim (until it actually happens to them or their family) or (b) they're in an area of law that they believe to be so superior to PI litigation, (forgetting that we all take the same qualifications and are governed by the same standards) and shout that it's about time this happened - but will then try to lead an outcry when their 'superior area' is the next target. The lights are getting dim, and will shortly be turned out

Typical head in the sand based logic has really been the reason for these reforms "without proof your evidence is nothing", "there is no mass fraud by claimant solicitors or claimants", "the ABI are paying the Government back handers" There's enough evidence widely available online to show that the claimant PI sector has milked this cash cow to death

The whole debate is dishonest. Insurers claim the system is rife with fraud. It is not. Claimants say it is all about access to justice and not self preservation. The government says they are determined to bring in the changes. They are not. They don't have the time and they don't have the majority. What they have done however is simply tax the activity through court fees and IPT which is all they can do without legislating. I think what we are witnessing now is the government desperately trying to appear assertive when they are devoid of real power. We have the insurers PR machine in full swing and we have the Claimant lobby trying to win hearts and minds. It is a stalemate. I don't think much is likely to change.

Members of the ABI substantially fund the Tory Party and their payback is the effective ending of Solicitors' involvement in low value RTA work. This will mean large redundancies in both Claimant and Defendant law firms which is a sad day indeed. It will be interesting to see the Justice Select Committee's findings but the Government, presumably under pressure from the ABI for payback, must think it can force the reforms through Parliament. There is still time to write to your MP.

I accept what you say to some extent but where is your proof? We are lawyers, so we do not rely on hearsay but evidence.

Prove it and you'd have far more support.

As for £75 on postage and calls, when most have mobile contracts and the like - plead FD because such losses are rubbish. Hell, most firms send out pre-paid envelopes so really nothing should be claimed.

But how are classifying your "harm" again the examples are clear.
Most of the claims received for minor injuries follow a similar pattern the claimant although "injured" did not seek medical attention or indeed contact their GP until after a CNF is submitted? Virtually all claimants were able to work but could not attend regular gym sessions 4-5 times a week, most claimants have spent £75 on postage and telephone calls, most claimants are recommended rehabilitation but never attend despite the insurer receiving a pro forma invoice which they "promise" will be paid back if the claimant does not attend.
I'm sorry but most of the STI / Whiplash claims are not worth a single penny and most claimants know that, they are simply going along with the advice they received from the first cold call promising that they have a right to £1000's

As a claimant (and ex-defendant) solicitor I wholeheartedly agree. And these reforms won't change that one iota, save that now it will be AMCs/CMCs who are running the cases. Yes there are ethical ones out there but ban the lot of them.

You have clearly either misunderstood my use of the word Greed or simply picked that word out for your somewhat pointless rant on ethics.

I'll give you an example, bear in mind that my use of this word is directed to AMC's mainly:

AMC - Bombards people with calls/contact to the point that a person agrees to submit claim. There were cases where they had actually already claimed and settled but were told they could claim again, see below:

AMC sends details of a claimant to a firm of Solicitors.

Solicitors then pay on average £500.00 per CLAIMANT.

AMC does not care any longer that the Claimant either doesn't wish to claim or has nothing to claim in the first place as they have got what they wanted.

Unbelievable ethical and judicial care from these AMC's - I am sure that they really care about a persons rights to Claim...

This comes from actual experience and not just an Insurer presumption as I will imagine you'd respond with. But obviously the big bad Insurers are responsible for this.

So, please even make an attempt to remove (ever so slightly) that Claimant veil and look at the seedy underworld in this process we currently have.

I was not directing the shame towards the insurance industry...they do not understand the meaning of the sentiment.

My criticism was of the shameful conduct of this government and their ABI paymasters ie. the government (or members of it) are going

Last time I checked, the ABI weren't government funded (although nothing would surprise me at the moment).

In future check the comment that you are about to criticise, before you type said missive, just to make sure you understand what is actually being said...otherwise, put the v-tech keyboard away and let the big boys and girls talk.

At the risk of being simplistic it seems illogical to me that if I am innocently minding my own business and someone crashes their vehicle into the back of me, because they are texting or have been drinking or otherwise not paying attention, thus causing me harm, for however long, then I should not be entitled to bring a claim for reasonable damages and be entitled to expect the negligent person to pay the reasonable cost of me having legal advice and support to do so. Reforms that seek to prevent that simply do not seem to me to stand up, whether to the laws of natural justice or otherwise.

How has it become "greed" for someone to pursue a claim. It is not greed which enthuses claimant's to claim. It is not "greed" which motivates solicitors to run cases. This is the narrative propagated by the insurance industry in the same way that "honest" motorists are the motorists that do not claim. Sure there are exceptions. There are problem cases. No denying it. Is it "greed" which motivates insurers to underwrite and "greed" to deny claims? Isn't it simply a case of claimant's knowing their legal rights and insurers trying to protect their financial interests?

"Shame on them and their ABI paymasters"...please explain this comment as you make is sound like the Association British Insurers, shouldn't be funded or indeed look at the best interest of .....insurers?

Firstly, I work as a Defendant to PI claims and I am not in agreement with the changes, however:

It has to be said that whilst I am in disagreement with the changes and the access to justice a normal person will have, as at the end of the day a claim is not always straight forward and especially when proceedings are required.

This has ultimately been created by the greed and tactics used within the PI industry, primarily AMC's - We see on a daily basis how they operate and pester, push and bully people into making claims when they had no interest in doing so. I accept that it is survival but they act in their own financial interest and not of any interest in justice. Referral fees do still exist and these AMC's play firms off each other continually which itself pushes them into taking on dubious claims.

There are a lot, and I do mean a lot of firms out there who are complicit in submitting fraudulent claims, exaggerated claims, fake hire companies and fake treatment providers. This is where there should be work to tackle, the SRA cherry pick what to investigate despite the serious concerns raised to them and have what seems little interest in the big issue.

It has now become common that if you are involved in an accident, injured or not, you are entitled to make a claim for PI. I do not for a second believe any savings on costs will be past back to a customer from the Insurers and there certainly will be no legal obligation for them to do so.

Ban the AMC's completely, go back to the days where Law Firms do their own marketing, advertising and push for work based on their reputation and skills. If someone is genuinely injured then they will inquire into it, they do not need 3 calls a day from the "Legal Eagle" telling you there is a pot of money set aside for them. who couldn't even tell you what CPR stands for, never mind having the audacity to tell you that they are concerned for your legal rights.

Insurers are getting pushed into a corner and this is their reaction, stop the crying about unfairness etc and look at the root of the problem and the culture that has been created, because for the majority it is unethical, misleading and self-greed of those that run them.

It's funny watching insurance man ask "why is there a monetary value on a most of the 2 month neck sprains" over and over again and completely gloss over the fact that the £5k cap would encompass up to a 15 month injury under the current system and would include most minor broken limbs.

Or it would be if it the ABI hadn't somehow played the same trick on the government.

"Rehabilitation will be provided and special damages will still be paid but the reforms are set to end the automatic thought that there's a monetary value to any form or ache or sprain after any collision."

@07:53 - "people will still be compensated if injured due to an RTA" - are you kidding me?!?! Have you even read the proposed reforms.

The tariff system essentially removes fair compensation. A 12 month whiplash injury (which I can tell you from personal experience, is incredibly uncomfortable, and makes some of life's most simple tasks, difficult and painful) would currently attract an award of approx £3,000.

A similar soft-tissue wrist injury (lets call it what it is...a sprain), might attract a similar figure.

The tariff system proposes to reduce compensation for the pain and suffering occasioned by the first injury, to approx £400 if I remember rightly...yet the wrist injury remains untouched despite the fact that the first injury is infinitely more restrictive, uncomfortable and has a greater impact on daily life.

Essentially, the government is happy to equate such an injury to the inconvenience of being delayed for 6+ hours for a flight as the figures are similar...

That's the whole point of the reforms, why is there a monetary value on a most of the 2 month neck sprains where no medical advice has been sought, no time off work, no rehabilitation undertaken even though its been recommended.
Rehabilitation will be provided and special damages will still be paid but the reforms are set to end the automatic thought that there's a monetary value to any form or ache or sprain after any collision.

@07:53 GMT "Slightly melodramatic don't you think? people will still be compensated if injured due to a RTA"

That genuinely made me laugh out loud.

Yeah alright... people will still be compensated if injured due to an RTA but only if their claim is worth more than 5k and they have legal representation. 90% of accident victims won't get diddly and to think anything else is as naive as believing that motorists will get their premium reduced by £60.. or is it £40... or £35? I can't remember what the latest reduced figure is from the insurers that people won't be receiving.. just like last time.

"If they support the Insurance industry in this Insidious manoeuvre to reduce Justice for the Meek, we will end with very unhappy people and the biggest disaster for the Conservitives in election history! "

Slightly melodramatic don't you think? people will still be compensated if injured due to a RTA

Like HS2, the Airport runways saga and the proving signals that the government only has big business to think of?

If they support the Insurance industry in this Insidious manoeuvre to reduce Justice for the Meek, we will end with very unhappy people and the biggest disaster for the Conservitives in election history!

Is it the Meek who commit fraud or is it the Big Boys! like Barclays are getting a roasting at the moment.

This was never about reducing fraud. Nobody is even talking about that now. As anybody who was on the recent Medco course in Manchester will know the reality is that nobody will intimate a claim for whiplash. No LIP is going to bother navigating the claims portal/medco/the tariff. So essentially whiplash claims will be wiped out almost entirely.

In some countries in the world the big boys get what they want because they shout the loudest and they hold the brown envelopes.

To those suggesting CMCs will get involved in return for 50% of damages, the insurance industry is already contending that the 20% cap to be applied to PPI claims should be extended to whiplash claims. If that comes to bear, I can’t see the majority of current CMCs being able to make the numbers work - although one or two huge players might just make it work if they can harvest enough claims.

Anon @ 17:02 the individual clients aren't up in arms because at present they have not either had their rights curtailed / made uneconomic yet.

See what Joe Public's response is when (with TPFF) they have a claim with Generals @ (in today's valuation £4k £1200 on tariff) LOE of £1000 and repairs of £5000 and you tell them, "sorry Mr Public, you can't get your costs back so you'll have to pay 50% of all damages, and that's if you're lucky. . . now be a good chap and suck it up and be grateful you've saved £35 when you next renew your policy".

You do have a point though in that it is the members of the public who's voices will count. I think it's time for all claimant firms to seek to get their clients to write to MP's in marginal constituencies to explaining how these proposals would have prevented them from obtaining the necessary redress (and that's even if we have the tariff system).

CMCs will take 30-50% and must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought that they don't have to worry about referral fees and getting solicitors involved. And they're already set up to do it as it'll be the new PPI.

17:02 - how can someone care about something that doesn't affect them, until they are affected by it? I can imagine stopping someone in the street and asking how these reforms affect them here and now.

Better to wait until May 2019 then ask injured claimants if they care when they're told to go elsewhere or do it themselves.

As mentioned the "individual clients" don't seem to be that concerned about their access to justice.
I have nothing against law firms at all but if you have sympathy for most of the forms that will be affected most by these changes then I pity you.

Troll @anon 16.27 the fact that you comment on the reforms in the context of the companies who undertake the work rather than the effect on the individual clients speaks volumes. You clearly have anti claimant law firm issues,

Couldn't come soon enough, with the access4justice team gathering about as much public support as a state visit from Donald Trump it would appear the writing is on the wall for many claimant PI firms and the compensation culture within the UK.

Getting the Bill through the house is not a certainty (esp in Their Lordship's place) and even then there is the implementation.

Has anyone pointed out to the Treasury how much these proposals are going to cost? HMCTS will have a monstrous black hole in their finances as the high value claims will almost certainly have fee remission and there will be virtually nil fast track issue fees or hearing fees: are we going to see the absurdity of the issue fee for what will remain a FT case increasing to £15k to try and fill the gap?

Then there's the reduction in IPT across the piece (that is if you're fool enough to believe there will be a reduction in premiums £3.50 per premium x 30 million policies = real money and the losses on IPT on ATE.

As for LIPs going through MID, AskCUE, Medco and the Portal well that's going to work well isn't it? Are we going to re-write CPR 27, are we going to have battles to allocate to FT because of complexity.

Actually I give up, if reason were to prevail it would have done so some time ago,

With a bit of luck this can wither on the vine and be ditched once we have a government with some basic integrity and desire to set out a policy agenda based on evidence and cogent reasoning. (and I say that as a member of the Conservatives).

This lame duck government still has to get this proposed legislation through parliament. Amazing that government can find the legislative time to try and push these changes through when there is so much else going on.

Was there any point in the written submissions process and the recent Commons Justice Select Committee ? I suspect not.

This was just an exercise in creating the impression that this inevitability was the result of a thorough and fair democratic consultancy process.

Many people spent a great deal of their valuable time compiling statistics, gathering evidence and preparing comprehensive written submissions. In return, the Government have totally ignored what they are being told regarding the inevitable damage to the right to access to justice.

The case for change was simply not made out at the select committee. The MPs on that committee will have come away from it with the firm view that the proposed changes were unnecessary and potentially damaging to the principle of access to justice for all. As such I am at a loss to understand how these particular changes have been given the green light.

The implementation date is the only slightly surprising element of this story.

I won’t make any predictions other than this will be fought tooth and nail. 96% of claims will for all intents and purposes become worthless to clients and in turn their lawyers. What a way to treat people.

Good call anon@15.17 why bother with waiting for the committee,even though claims are down,the number of medco searches and instructions are down(source medco conference notes)insurers report lower claim volumes and have laid off staff.
But let's open the doors to CMC's-Lord keen.

The Law Society of England and Wales

The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. From negotiating with and lobbying the profession’s regulators, government and others, to offering training and advice, we’re here to help, protect and promote solicitors across England and Wales.